Agenda item 2 is consideration of the financial memorandum to the Fire (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced on 28 June 2004 by Cathy Jamieson. To help us consider the bill, we will take evidence from witnesses: Councillor Pat Watters, who is president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; Councillor Julie Sturrock, who is from Dundee City Council; Stephen Hunter, who is fire-master for Tayside fire brigade; and Eileen Baird, who is from Strathclyde fire brigade.
My short opening statement will not go into the detail that is in our written submission. I thank the committee for this positive opportunity to ensure that the financial provision for the bill allows for a fire service that will serve the needs of the people of Scotland effectively.
What level of consultation took place with local authorities and COSLA about not just the policy issues but the important financial implications? We have experience of consultation having focused purely on the policy issues and of the financial issues not having been consulted on. Do you feel that there has been adequate consultation on the financial memorandum?
There are gaps in the memorandum; it does not explain fully the consequences of financial regulations. The bill proposes various changes that would have a financial impact. One that springs to mind is about charging for services and issuing fire certificates. There will be a loss of revenue from that change of about £200,000 throughout Scotland. The memorandum does not acknowledge that there could be increased demand as a result of the changes that are to be made. Although there is no cost for that, the servicing of the change could cost more than we provide for at present, at the same time as reducing income from charges. We have consulted authorities, which have concerns—I put it no stronger than that at present. They would like the Executive to agree that, if the legislative changes require additional finances, those finances should not come from the core service and additional money will come in to fund the changes. If we made progress with that, everyone would be happy.
In your submission, under "Core Duties", you say:
I will bring in my colleague, Stephen Hunter.
The bill sets out the core duties that we have been carrying out for many years, such as duties around road traffic accidents. There is an assumption that we have adequate funding to provide those services. One of the main areas in which there will be an increase in core duties is the statutory duty to deliver community fire safety. At present, brigades are not structured and do not have sufficient resources to be able to deliver that statutory duty. For many years, brigades have been involved with the community in trying to prevent fires and reduce the number of fire deaths and injuries. That has not been a statutory duty and has been funded from existing budgets. As a result of its becoming a statutory duty, brigades will have a much greater responsibility to have sufficient resources to deliver a much more effective community safety campaign.
Can you quantify that financially? How much more money do you think would be required?
It is difficult to say how much more money would be required throughout Scotland. The modernisation agenda implies that through time—it is acknowledged that this would happen through time—resources will be able to be taken away from the emergency-response side and put into community fire safety, but that cannot happen until it is demonstrated that community fire-safety measures work. An injection of finance might be required to pump-prime the additional community fire-safety responsibilities and duties. Through time, that money might be able to taper off, because of the other results of modernisation of the service. However, at the moment it is difficult to quantify what each brigade in Scotland would require to deliver effectively the new statutory duty around community fire safety.
There is a lack of detail in the bill about what will be required in relation to fire safety that would allow us to evaluate properly the impact. We strongly support the drive to deliver fire safety, because we believe that the best way to tackle a fire is to prevent it. If we get the education process and working with the community right, through time we will see a reduction in the number of fires. That work has to be done continually, because it is vital to maintain awareness in communities. However, there is not enough detail in the bill to allow us to say, "That will cost X."
You might be able to help the committee and me with a point in the submission from Dumfries and Galloway fire brigade. On appliance fuel, it says:
Yes, we are paying fuel tax at standard rate.
So that is the element that you would like to be removed. You are happy to carry on paying the standard rate for fuel for your normal little vehicles that you go about in, but you believe, perhaps understandably, that fuel for the appliances that go and fight fire should not be taxed at that rate.
Yes.
In financial terms, how much would that save and how much would it help you?
The reduced rate of tax is 65 per cent lower than the standard rate. At the moment, brigades throughout Scotland spend something like £1.5 million on their fuel budget. We could save up to 65 per cent on a fairly high proportion of that budget. That could be a good few hundred thousand pounds. I do not have the exact figures, so I do not know how much of that £1.5 million is spent on fuel for the emergency-response vehicles, but I imagine that it would be a high proportion, so there could be a significant saving for us.
I draw us back to the bill.
I want to follow up on the fuel issue. It is not within the Parliament's remit to change the duty on fuel or the exemption. Are you suggesting that the Executive should consider subsidising the cost of fuel, which is all that could be done from here?
Because it is concerned with the financial implications of the bill, our submission asked the Scottish Executive to consider an issue that would reduce the financial burden on fire authorities.
That is action that would be taken in Westminster and not in the Scottish Parliament. It is not in the power of the Scottish Parliament to affect that, but it is obviously something about which representations could be made.
It is difficult for us to comment on that. The Executive's proposals are still out for consultation. We have the issue on the agenda for discussion at our next leaders' meeting. I will ask Stephen Hunter to comment on the details, but I would certainly say that, although it would be physically possible to run the fire service from one control room, I do not believe that that would be a safe way of operating. We would at least need a back-up system in case of emergencies, such as a terrorist attack on the control room, so I do not believe that it would be right to have only one control room.
The report was a technical review, and although I believe that it is accepted that it is technically possible to reduce the number of controls, there is a whole host of issues on which COSLA, the fire authorities and other organisations are responding in the present consultation.
The report from the Dumfries and Galloway fire brigade appeared to suggest that there are some things that are currently done in the fire control room in Dumfries and Galloway that would remain in Dumfries and Galloway and would not be handled under the new arrangements. Therefore, there would be a cost to the brigade in taking over those functions.
That is a general issue that we might need to raise next week in our consideration of the issues that arose out of our away day.
I want to follow up on the answers that Stephen Hunter gave a moment ago and I want to ask about the potential hidden costs of centralisation of control rooms in regard to the loss of local knowledge. There could be situations in which the similarity of place names in some parts of Scotland could lead to slow responses and worse damage. In the long term, that would result in higher insurance costs, to say nothing of the costs of damage to council tax payers and business rate payers. Beyond that, there is the possibility of negligence claims coming home to roost. There is also the possibility that there could be more hoax calls, with a centralised control room less able to differentiate between the real and the hoax. Have the witnesses anything to say about that?
I think that we are drifting towards policy rather than concentrating on financial issues.
I think that those issues could have bigger financial implications than making the change would have.
In answer to Mr Mather's question, I would say that, as well as the financial costs of the centralisation of fire controls, we must consider the cost to society of any potential changes. There is not just a potential financial saving to the fire service; as Mr Mather outlined, there might be additional burdens on other areas of society as a result of the changes. That is why, at the end of the consultation, we will have to see the outcome of the Executive's consideration of what those issues might be.
At the end of the day, what we need is an absolutely clear statement of the financial situation. We might even require some external skills to put the issue properly in context and to assess the net effect on Scotland of such a change.
My question is still on control rooms, I am afraid, but it comes from a slightly different angle, which was highlighted when I spent quite a few hours at the force communications centre of Lothian and Borders police in Bilston. I know that different forces are involved, but the work that COSLA will be doing with the authorities could include considering not only the efficiency savings and the assumptions about costs, but where the control rooms are located and what co-ordination there could be with the other emergency services, so that there could be sharing of technology platforms. Will you be considering those aspects as part of the consultation process? Rather than just the bare costs of the number of control rooms, perhaps we should consider the type of control rooms and their relationship with other services.
You are absolutely right; there is a governance issue there. At present, each individual brigade is responsible for its control room. With a smaller number of control rooms, there will be a governance issue with regard to who is responsible for the control rooms and who they are answerable to, and that has not been considered or worked out either. As you would expect, I am firmly of the belief that fire protection is a vital local service that is provided by local government. As such, the reshaping of any part of the organisation must be firmly within local government, so that we have control over the services that we are providing and for which we are responsible. You would expect me to say that, so I am not disappointing members of the committee by saying it.
The consultants' report considered a number of options: keeping the status quo, with eight fire controls; having some fire controls merge with other fire controls; and having fire controls merge with other emergency service controls. The outcome of the consultants' investigation was that the preferred option would be amalgamation of fire controls with other fire controls. The consultants' report rules out the amalgamation of fire controls with other emergency service controls, and it gives reasons for ruling out that option.
I was struck by the technology that the police have, with global positioning systems to identify every fire hydrant in the force area—or at least they have that in my constituency. That is not information that Lothian and Borders fire brigade has. On issues such as that, constituents are looking not only for efficiencies but for practicalities, but I appreciate that developing those practicalities is part of an on-going process.
Another project mentioned in the bill is the firelink airwave project, which is a complete change to the radio system used by the fire service, following the changes made to the police service radio systems. Some of the issues concerning the electronic information that is available to fire personnel on the ground and at controls will be addressed as a result of the transition to the new airwave system.
Can any of our witnesses comment on the written evidence that we received from the Central Scotland fire brigade? Speaking about the proposed common fire services agency, it said:
It is difficult for us to answer that. The brigades submitted their responses directly to the Executive. We have not had sight of their responses to the consultation exercise.
Convener, could we ask Central Scotland fire brigade for more information on that point?
We certainly could.
Councillor Sturrock would like to say something about the point that was being made earlier on.
The consultants might have said that they would regard more collaboration among police, fire and other agencies on a local basis to be less preferable than collaboration on a national basis among various fire brigades, but that is not necessarily COSLA's point of view. From our community planning perspective, local collaboration is the most obvious approach, and it is perhaps the most directly accountable process. We are already co-operating locally on purchasing. Many of the suggestions for best-value projects, such as joint procurement for items other than fire equipment, are already taking place—office supplies, paper and so on are already being procured on a co-operative local best-value basis. The fact that the consultants have not voiced that as their preference does not mean that COSLA does not prefer that option. We have yet to reach a decision in that regard.
Beyond the financial aspect, there are a lot of policy issues. Given what I have seen of the force communications centre in my constituency and the need for local knowledge, which Jim Mather touched on, I hope that you are actively considering the issues that have been raised. As Pat Watters said, local accountability is vital.
We are clear that the responsibility for legislation lies with the Scottish Parliament and the Executive. When legislation is introduced, its impact has to be considered. As local politicians, we have priorities that we have been elected to deal with and we do not think that we should be expected to shelve some of our priorities, which the electorate expects us to deliver, to deliver priorities that have been set elsewhere, even if those priorities are shared ones. Community safety is a shared priority, of course, and I absolutely agree that the natural place for that to be dealt with is in the fire service—those people are the natural people to do the job. However, there is a difference between having community safety as a responsibility that we take on and it being a statutory responsibility that we have to deliver. If it is a statutory responsibility, we must ensure that the resources are there to allow us to carry it out. When something becomes a responsibility under statute, the expectation becomes higher.
Legislative fire safety has been a statutory duty for fire authorities for more than 30 years and much progress has been made on safety since the passing of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. Community fire safety is about making people far more safe in their homes. Although, as has been said, all fire brigades in Scotland have been involved in that process, the statutory duty will mean that community fire safety will have to be delivered in a far more structured and auditable manner in order to measure the benefits that are accruing to the community as a result of the work that is taking place.
As I said, the submission uses strong language when it says:
The view that is expressed in the submission in this instance might well be an illustration of the general view of COSLA across the board. Would it be fair to say that, Councillor Watters?
Yes, as a general point. I would say that £150,000 out of the national budget is fine, as long as that money is going to be spent on only one area. However, if £150,000 is to be spent on everything, that will have an impact.
The point is that under the proposed legislation the minister has sweeping powers to make many financial decisions that will have a knock-on effect on the fire service. For instance, although the bill contains requirements on the purchase of equipment and what have you that will have on-going effects on revenue, it does not contain any obligation to make available appropriate finances to meet those requirements and on-going expenses.
I will try and draw this item to a close with questions from Ted Brocklebank and myself.
I want to clarify the point that Jeremy Purvis was trying to elicit. On fire safety, Dumfries and Galloway fire brigade's submission says:
I have two points in response to that question. In an exercise that we carried out with one fire brigade, we came up with a figure on which we based an estimate for the rest of the brigades. We believe that about £200,000 in income would not be available at that particular point.
At the moment, brigades have a structure for inspecting premises that need a fire certificate. Because that process has been in place for 30 years, each brigade knows the resources that need to be applied to that activity. As Councillor Watters has pointed out, after the need for fire certification is removed, we will lose £200,000. We cannot predict the activity levels for the provision of advice; however, it is likely that after an advertising campaign occupiers and owners of commercial and industrial properties will want to take the fire service's advice which, up to now, has always been given free of charge.
Fergus Ewing will ask a brief question.
I apologise to witnesses for being unavoidably detained elsewhere earlier.
I think that the last part of that question was really more about a policy issue than about the financial memorandum. However, I appreciate why Fergus Ewing wants to raise it.
One of the main planks of fire service modernisation is the integrated risk management plan, under which one will assess needs on an on-going basis. Even the Executive acknowledges that we will have to see how the plan operates over a period of time before we can appreciate whether it will generate savings or additional costs.
We will accept written answers to our questions.
Elaborating slightly on the point that Fergus Ewing raised, I should say that Highlands and Islands has far more auxiliaries and volunteers than any other brigade in Scotland. We are greatly concerned about the remoteness of such areas from retained and whole-time fire stations.
On the future funding of the service, COSLA is represented on a working group that, as Councillor Watters has pointed out, will consider changes in the service following the implementation of the integrated risk management plan. That process will continue, but we have agreed that it will be some years yet—perhaps with the comprehensive spending review in 2008—before any impacts will manifest themselves in service funding.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses very much for attending the meeting. I should apologise for not mentioning Barbara Lindsay when I introduced the witnesses at the start.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Previous
Public Sector Jobs Relocation Debate